|
|
| Next: Key excerpts from U.N. North Korea resolution |
| Author |
Message |
tony7914
Joined: Dec 24, 2004
Posts: 4965
Location: Peru Indiana
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 7:10 pm Post subject: U.S. drug czar calls for end to "war on drugs" |
|
|
| Quote: |
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration's top drug cop plans to spend more money on treating addiction and scale down the "war on drugs" rhetoric as part of an overhaul of U.S. counternarcotics strategy.
But don't expect the White House to consider legalizing marijuana, drug czar Gil Kerlikowske said on Friday.
"The discussion about legalization is not a part of the president's vocabulary under any circumstances and it's not a part of mine," Kerlikowske said in a telephone interview.
As head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Kerlikowske coordinates the efforts of 32 government agencies to limit illicit drug use.
He has been in office less than a month, but the Obama administration has already taken a less confrontational approach to the nation's 35 million illegal drug users...... |
Source.
Well let's see where it goes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sgt Schultz
Joined: Dec 07, 2002
Posts: 7378
Location: St. Louis area
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 7:14 pm Post subject: Re: U.S. drug czar calls for end to [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
|
|
| tony7914 wrote: |
| Well let's see where it goes. |
It should have ended years ago. How much money has been wasted?
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tony7914
Joined: Dec 24, 2004
Posts: 4965
Location: Peru Indiana
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 7:22 pm Post subject: Re: U.S. drug czar calls for end to [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| Sgt Schultz wrote: |
| tony7914 wrote: |
| Well let's see where it goes. |
It should have ended years ago. How much money has been wasted? |
Good question, I think I am more concerned with what's going to happen in the future though. They seem to think they can control what comes across the southern border but there's about 12 million illegal immigrants out there that kinda blow that theory out of the water. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5427
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 7:45 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| Interesting. Obama's appointing Czars faster than we can count, and the one Czar that we've had for years is trying to eliminate his job. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 8179
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:32 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
http://www.drugpolicy.org/drugwar/
| Quote: |
Few public policies have compromised public health and undermined our fundamental civil liberties for so long and to such a degree as the war on drugs.
The United States is now the world's largest jailer, imprisoning nearly half a million people for drug offenses alone. That's more people than Western Europe, with a bigger population, incarcerates for all offenses. Roughly 1.5 million people are arrested each year for drug law violations - 40% of them just for marijuana possession.
People suffering from cancer, AIDS and other debilitating illnesses are regularly denied access to their medicine or even arrested and prosecuted for using medical marijuana. We can do better. |
In the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution,the drug, alcohol was prohibited.
This enabled organised crime groups to vastly increase their reach into society,
and highly enriched them.
The criminalisation of other drugs has done the same.
When the harm caused by use of marijuana is compared harm of use of alcohol,
alcohol is by far the most deadly social drug.
There is no lethal dose for marijuana, but one large bottle of spirits can cause death.
For further comparison of alcohol and marijuana see http://www.saferchoice.org/content/view/24/53/
As for myself, I use coffee as my social drug of choice... 
I would support the total decriminalisation of drugs,
which, I think, would lead to less social harm,
than criminalisation does today.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bern
Joined: Mar 12, 2007
Posts: 1432
Location: ann arbor
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:27 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| kenmabmcc wrote: |
I would support the total decriminalisation of drugs,
which, I think, would lead to less social harm,
than criminalisation does today.
|
Absolutely. There seems to be an area where we can agree.
I am convinced that the Mafia is the lobby that is pushing to keep the war on drugs going. That boosts prices, and leads to a very profitable monopoly for them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sgt Schultz
Joined: Dec 07, 2002
Posts: 7378
Location: St. Louis area
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:30 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| bern wrote: |
[Absolutely. There seems to be an area where we can agree.
I am convinced that the Mafia is the lobby that is pushing to keep the war on drugs going. That boosts prices, and leads to a very profitable monopoly for them. |
It is also a very lucrative deal for law enforcement agencies i.e. the funding they receive to fight the war on drugs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5427
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:04 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
In a related story, Obama's War on Cigarettes (a legal product that the government uses as a source of income) is picking up:
| Quote: |
| President Barack Obama is lauding the passage of historic anti-smoking legislation that gives the government sweeping authority to regulate tobacco products, pledging to quickly sign the measure into law. |
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090613/D98PLO1O0.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 8179
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:53 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
Nicotine is a far worse drug than marijuana,
and yet the sale of cigarettes is legal...
It would be amusing if it wasn't so silly.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 8179
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 3:42 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
Drugs Won the War
| Quote: |
Here in the United States, four decades of drug war have had three consequences:
First, we have vastly increased the proportion of our population in prisons. The United States now incarcerates people at a rate nearly five times the world average. In part, that’s because the number of people in prison for drug offenses rose roughly from 41,000 in 1980 to 500,000 today. Until the war on drugs, our incarceration rate was roughly the same as that of other countries.
Second, we have empowered criminals at home and terrorists abroad. One reason many prominent economists have favored easing drug laws is that interdiction raises prices, which increases profit margins for everyone, from the Latin drug cartels to the Taliban. Former presidents of Mexico, Brazil and Colombia this year jointly implored the United States to adopt a new approach to narcotics, based on the public health campaign against tobacco.
Third, we have squandered resources. Jeffrey Miron, a Harvard economist, found that federal, state and local governments spend $44.1 billion annually enforcing drug prohibitions. We spend seven times as much on drug interdiction, policing and imprisonment as on treatment. (Of people with drug problems in state prisons, only 14 percent get treatment.) |
$44 billion annually....that's a lot of money to spend on a losing war.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5427
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 9:15 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
The only problem we have with the War on Drugs is the way it is waged. Instead of trying to treat people with drug problems, they are warehoused. Drug dealers should still go to prison, they are committing crimes, but even they need to be rehabilitated instead of warehoused.
Of course, that's not a problem with the drug crimes only. Very few people in prisons are rehabilitated - the only intent of prison anymore (with very few exceptions) is to keep people out of society, which helps no one in the long run (and costs a lot of money). And we even make them comfortable in prison, so it's not even good as a deterent anymore, either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 8179
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:44 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
I would agree that drug users need to be able to receive rehabilitation.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CowpokeBob
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
Posts: 1501
Location: South Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:00 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| kenmabmcc wrote: |
I would agree that drug users need to be able to receive rehabilitation.
|
I would agree that they need to given effective treatment to aid them in getting off the drugs as a temporary solution but if that fails than prison or some other form of forced internment to remove the addiction would be the next logical step. I've no interest in creating yet another caste of "victims" for the government to become eternally beholden to. As I've said in the past. People make their own decisions and there is a cost associated with every one of them. If they make a bad decision (to use drugs) it is not up to the rest of us to hold their hands and take care of them for the rest of their lives as a result. I am more than willing to help someone to better themselves or their situation but they are the ones that will have to rise to the challenge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5427
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:46 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| CowpokeBob wrote: |
| kenmabmcc wrote: |
I would agree that drug users need to be able to receive rehabilitation.
|
I would agree that they need to given effective treatment to aid them in getting off the drugs as a temporary solution but if that fails than prison or some other form of forced internment to remove the addiction would be the next logical step. I've no interest in creating yet another caste of "victims" for the government to become eternally beholden to. As I've said in the past. People make their own decisions and there is a cost associated with every one of them. If they make a bad decision (to use drugs) it is not up to the rest of us to hold their hands and take care of them for the rest of their lives as a result. I am more than willing to help someone to better themselves or their situation but they are the ones that will have to rise to the challenge. |
My point was simply that warehousing does no one any good. If they're in prison, at least attempt to rehabilitate them. That isn't done now, they're just put in a box to keep them out of site (and out of mind) for a while. Then when they get out, no surprise, they are still addicts, and end up back in jail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CowpokeBob
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
Posts: 1501
Location: South Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:02 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| xavierx wrote: |
| CowpokeBob wrote: |
| kenmabmcc wrote: |
I would agree that drug users need to be able to receive rehabilitation.
|
I would agree that they need to given effective treatment to aid them in getting off the drugs as a temporary solution but if that fails than prison or some other form of forced internment to remove the addiction would be the next logical step. I've no interest in creating yet another caste of "victims" for the government to become eternally beholden to. As I've said in the past. People make their own decisions and there is a cost associated with every one of them. If they make a bad decision (to use drugs) it is not up to the rest of us to hold their hands and take care of them for the rest of their lives as a result. I am more than willing to help someone to better themselves or their situation but they are the ones that will have to rise to the challenge. |
My point was simply that warehousing does no one any good. If they're in prison, at least attempt to rehabilitate them. That isn't done now, they're just put in a box to keep them out of site (and out of mind) for a while. Then when they get out, no surprise, they are still addicts, and end up back in jail. |
I don't know about that. There are some programs out there like pre-trial intervention for non violent offenders and alternative sentencing programs. I have yet to see any rehabilitation program produce better than t token success rate. Simple truth is that no matter the program if the subject is unwilling to make the commitment failure is almost always assured. If a person really wants to change they will seek out the help they need. Simply offering aid for the sake of having said you tried is not really much of a solution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5427
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:22 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
Yes, many rehab programs have bad success rates. But the alternative is to just let people rot in jail. I'm just saying at least try while you have a captive audience!
Also, I was talking about more than just rehab. I was also talking about teaching them a skill. And most importantly, give them something productive to do! There's a jail in PA that has apple orchards, and they supply many food banks in the state. That keeps them busy, helps the poor, and gives the inmates something to be proud of. I know at least one kid (he was 18 when he went in, 23(? low 20's anyway) when he came out - and he is one of the few people I worked with who didn't end up back in jail. In fact, he ended up a foreman at a fiberglass place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bern
Joined: Mar 12, 2007
Posts: 1432
Location: ann arbor
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:00 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| xavierx wrote: |
Yes, many rehab programs have bad success rates. But the alternative is to just let people rot in jail. I'm just saying at least try while you have a captive audience!
Also, I was talking about more than just rehab. I was also talking about teaching them a skill. And most importantly, give them something productive to do! There's a jail in PA that has apple orchards, and they supply many food banks in the state. That keeps them busy, helps the poor, and gives the inmates something to be proud of. I know at least one kid (he was 18 when he went in, 23(? low 20's anyway) when he came out - and he is one of the few people I worked with who didn't end up back in jail. In fact, he ended up a foreman at a fiberglass place. |
In the "old days" way before the war on drugs, going back centuries, in fact, there were many productive and creative people who were addicted to drugs and remained productive the entire time.
http://www.drugalcohol-rehab.com/famous-addicts.htm
http://everything2.com/title/Famous%2520drug%2520addicts
The difference was that the drugs were cheap and readily available. These folks did not have to resort to crime to get their daily fix.
Of course, there were people who were disabled by their habit. Many of those, by the way, had/have other psychiatric illnesses that they were trying to self medicate for with illicit drugs and alcohol. I know very well a person with bipolar disorder who, before the condition was diagnosed used every drug imaginable for several years; when finally diagnosed and placed on proper medication, they stopped using alcohol and drugs entirely (except for cigarettes, which suggests their addiction potential). This story is anecdotal, of course, and does not constitute scientific evidence; however it is a very common story.
The number of people harmed by user criminalization is immense: witness the huge prison population we have consisting of these folks and the petty crimes they commit to get drugs. Of course, there will be some who will not do well under a decriminalization law, but I am convinced this number is tiny compared to the benefit to all of society that will occur as a result of decriminalization.
If use of drugs were decriminalized, and drugs were made available at cost (it costs next to nothing to make drugs) to addicts by regulated providers, most of them would avail themselves of this service since there would be no threat of criminal prosecution. During this time, they would also receive counselling, diagnosis, training, etc.
But the central step must be decriminalization of users. Otherwise nothing else will work. They will continue to stay away from "authorities", and will continue their criminal ways to get their drugs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 8179
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:12 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| bern wrote: |
If use of drugs were decriminalized, and drugs were made available at cost (it costs next to nothing to make drugs) to addicts by regulated providers, most of them would avail themselves of this service since there would be no threat of criminal prosecution. During this time, they would also receive counselling, diagnosis, training, etc.
But the central step must be decriminalization of users. Otherwise nothing else will work. They will continue to stay away from "authorities", and will continue their criminal ways to get their drugs. |
You and I see decriminalisation as obvious policy to follow.
Many cannot see that criminalisation of drugs is bad,
because they say drugs are bad.
Well I agree that many drugs are very bad for all those that take them.
But, like the prohibition of alcohol,
the only winners in criminalisation of drugs,
are those criminals who supply them.
The losers are you and I who pay extra in insurance, income tax,
and those who lose family members to these adulterated drugs.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5427
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:01 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
Bern, those famous people were able to get their drugs and be "productive" precisely because they were famous, not because drugs were cheap.
Also, I notice that the fist list is a huge list of celebrities who have been in rehab. Obviously, they weren't doing just fine, or else they wouldn't have ended up in rehab.
The other thing you should look at is how many people who could have been productive ended up dead because of drugs. That's a longer list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_drug-related_deaths
I'd also like to point out that I'm not arguing about legalizing drugs. I'm arguing against the way the addicts, have been treated. Putting people in jail for many years with no attempt to rehabilitate them, no matter what the crime, does nothing for anyone. If we attempt to rehabilitate instead of warehouse, maybe we could help a lot of people be productive - probably not famous, though.
I would agree that not every drug should be illegal, but some still should. I hope no one here is arguing that things like crack and heroin are harmless. Some drugs, even regulated, should not be taken by people without a valid medical need. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bern
Joined: Mar 12, 2007
Posts: 1432
Location: ann arbor
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:10 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| xavierx wrote: |
| Bern, those famous people were able to get their drugs and be "productive" precisely because they were famous, not because drugs were cheap. |
There were non famous folks doing fine as well, but we don't hear much about them. Drugs were cheap. There was no mafia to inflate prices. The point is only that addicts are not necessarliy disabled, as we assume today. They can be very productive as this partial list proves.
| xavierx wrote: |
| Also, I notice that the fist list is a huge list of celebrities who have been in rehab. Obviously, they weren't doing just fine, or else they wouldn't have ended up in rehab. |
It is still illegal. Some were in rehab because a judge ordered them to be. And drugs are not freely available, and often contaminated. An addict under those conditions often gets infections that would not occur if sterile drugs were available from regulated sources. They might have been doing just fine if it weren't for these consideratons.
The list of traffic fatalities is even longer. Doesn't mean the government needs to outlaw driving. And many of the fatalities came from impure/non standard drugs. Problem goes away if source is regulated.
| xavierx wrote: |
| I'd also like to point out that I'm not arguing about legalizing drugs. I'm arguing against the way the addicts, have been treated. Putting people in jail for many years with no attempt to rehabilitate them, no matter what the crime, does nothing for anyone. If we attempt to rehabilitate instead of warehouse, maybe we could help a lot of people be productive - probably not famous, though. |
You are partly right. However, as long as an addict faces censure, even if it is just a visit to a judge who puts him in "rehab" that addict will choose to take his chances with street drugs. Stupid choice, I admit, but facts is facts.
| xavierx wrote: |
| would agree that not every drug should be illegal, but some still should. I hope no one here is arguing that things like crack and heroin are harmless. Some drugs, even regulated, should not be taken by people without a valid medical need. |
Often an addict gets worse drugs foisted on him by his pusher. This would not happen if there were no pushers. It is clear that the only act that will make the pushers go away is to remove the incentive for addicts to do business with them. Decriminalization of use, and ready availability from regulated sources solves that problem.
Note, I said decriminalization of use, not decriminalization of sale or production.
Finally, we are both good "small government" people. We certainly don't want the government telling us how to use our money or property. But we also don't want a big government bureaucracy telling us not to act stupid. That bureaucracy will keep finding more "stupid" things for us not to do. So, decriminalizing drugs is not an Obama thing. Quite the opposite. It is right in line with the thinking of us small government types. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
| |
|
|
General